Furry Vengeance (2010)

Please don't spend money on this.

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

A Brilliant Conflict

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

What we have here is a live action cartoon movie following the tradition of Cactus Jack (The Villain), and 101 Dalmatians. As such many of the rules of cinematic logic don't apply and actually shouldn't apply. The characters are mostly cartoons themselves, one dimensionals (or two dimensional at best). Brendan Fraser has already proved himself as a capble cartoon character, in George of the Jungle, Loony Toons: Back in Action and a few other movies. And he's doing it all over again, no surprises, the guy can ham it like the very best.Personally I don't mind many of these live-action cartoons, I even like some of them. But the basic attitude of them all is: "hey, you're watching a silly movie, don't take it seriously, just have fun". This doesn't mix well with real satirical intentions. And that's the real problem of this one, when you satirize global capitalism and aim at success obsessed people selling out for promotion sake, you can't say with the very same breath - don't take it seriously. You could if it was a parody, but this one tries to be a satire, and at this point exactly it fails miserably.

Furry Vengeance is a harrowing journey of a film, an emotional and phenomenological odyssey not to be embarked upon lightly. (What it isn't: a Hitchcockian crime thriller involving people dressing up as anthropomorphized animals for sexual satisfaction. I know - I was disappointed too)A story. Like you, I was never daft enough to assume a so-called family comedy involving a visibly embarrassed, potbellied Brendan Fraser being subjected to various slapstick antics by a group of indignant forest animals would be anything in the area code, let alone neighbourhood, of quality filmmaking. I hunkered down, wincing, and prepared to boorishly wrest a few halfhearted guffaws from how much of a boneheaded mess awaited me.Then: the unbelievable.I laughed. A lot. Like… worrisomely a lot.Oh, not in the way that quote-unquote-director Roger Kumble and his sheepish (ALMOST PUN) filmmaking crew intended. Goodness no. We're talking new depths of 'laughing at, not with', in the most derisive sense. But laugh I did, screeching at the cavernous wasteland of idiocy unfolding before my eyes. How the film recycles the same footage of the logs-hit-boulders wannabe Mousetrap engineered by the unfathomably savvy raccoon adversary/antihero(?) TWICE in the first twenty minutes, as if brazenly flaunting the film's laziness. All subsequent bumped heads/skunk spraying/annoying birds mischief is so deliciously sleepy and stale the film would appear laudably self-parodic were it not despicably phoned in.But, while stupidity reins, boring the film ain't. Oh no. Before we know it, we get Brooke Shields, caught in a subplot mercilessly mocking senior citizens with dementia. Then, the film's 1950s-calibre-of-subtlety product placement ("Honey, I know you're upset we moved away from the big city. But hey - WHO WANTS A NEW WII?"), and the room starts to contort and spin a bit. At one point, Fraser, sprayed in the crotch by a rampant lawn sprinkler, turns to his dumbfounded family, and intones "I made pee-pee". My jaw plunged through the floor, interrupting the family below me having their peaceful, thoroughly sane dinner. Soon, our chirping forest menagerie (all disturbingly voiced by Dee Bradley Baker like Aladdin's Abu run through a blender) start to communicate in comic book style visual speech bubbles, one of which visualizes Brendan Fraser as a teeth-gnashing Satan. Then: strange flashbacks(?) have Fraser embodying break-dancing pilgrims and cavemen alike. Welcome to Crazy Town, population: you. We hit the level of hallucinogenic lunacy where it would hardly seem out of place if Nicolas Cage appeared as a rainbow centaur, guzzling gasoline out of a bowler hat while reciting the pledge of allegiance backwards. And I laughed and laughed, nearly fit to burst, like one of the overcaffienated weasels from Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Then, near the halfway point, the film's high wears off, and the existential despair sets in. "Wait a minute," my brain, resenting its loss of brain cells, rebuts. "You think you're all high and mighty making fun of this awful movie. But look at it this way - it's a comedy, and you're laughing. Doesn't that mean it achieved its goal? Doesn't that mean it's... an EXCELLENT movie? Hmm? Hmmmmm? Chew on that!" "Good god - you're right, externally personified brain! What if everything I've ever believed about film criticism and the rest of the world is a lie? What if pigs fly and cats woof and babies have babies and our perception of life is a collective dream as we nuzzle in conveyor belts in giant eggs, tended by an insectoid Rosie O'Donnell with a thousand legs? Ohhhhh no." Then came the stupefied sadness. If Kumble's artistic intent was to bludgeon all sensibilities out of audiences to the point where they are too catatonic to object to the film's trite environmentalist message, he is a secret genius - by the film's mid-point, I was practically weeping for the fate of the trees and squirrels and raccoons and other nature things. Or at least I would have wept, had the film not reduced me to too much of a husk to retain bodily fluids. Stray thoughts flitted across my brain."Man, poor Ken Jeong being in this movie must mean he really needs to renovate his house. I hope he didn't displace any forests for it. I feel like the moral of the story is that wouldn't end well.""If I had a raccoon puppet, how many hands would it take to make it do the Charleston?""Wallace Shawn? Playing a psychiatrist? Inconceivable!""Will I survive to ever watch another film again?"Then, I think I fell asleep for a while/my brain finally mutineered and I slumped on the couch in a vegetative state. I rebooted just in time to catch Fraser's corporate stooge's contrived third act change of heart, spelling out the film's treehugging message in capital letters, as the raccoon puppets all give thumbs up. By the film's almost apologetically reluctant closing credits dance number to a sanitized cover of "Insane in the Membrane" (you can now tick 'Beerbellied Brendan Fraser in a crop top party-boy-ing with squirrel puppets' off your cinematic bucket list) I was howling with disbelieving laughter again. Or maybe it was howling in anguish. Pretty hard to distinguish at this point. In all fairness, the film offers roughly three genuine but meager laughs: one at how ashamed Brendan Fraser looks throughout, one in solidarity with Ken Jeong, and one at Rob Riggle belligerently refusing to be dragged down to the film's level (in his character's own words: "I do as I please!!!"). But otherwise... yeesh. To all unsuspecting children who might be exposed to the mind-altering horrors of this movie: I fear for you, and humanity's future. To all consenting adults willingly subjecting themselves to the hallucinogenic, apocalyptic camp of Furry Vengeance: godspeed. Your lives will never again be the same. -1/10

At the start of the movie, the man in charge of phase two of Lyman Enterprises' plans for the Rocky Springs community arrives. But he soon wishes he hadn't, as the very intelligent animals that live in the woods attack him with a Rube Goldberg style contraption. It doesn't take him long to get fed up and quit.Dan is in charge of Lyman's phase one. He and his gorgeous science teacher wife Tammy and their teenage son Tyler have left Chicago for a year, much to the boy's dismay. The family lives in a fabulous house which serves as the model home, as Frank and his crew build other houses nearby. However, Dan later finds out he is also in charge of phase two, and this will mean staying four years.Tammy and Tyler are new at the local school. Tammy soon finds herself roped into running the Forest Festival. She doesn't like doing it, but it will help her husband's career.Lyman arrives on a private plane at the "international" airport. There is a paved runway surrounded by grass but this place doesn't appear capable of qualifying for handling crop dusters. And the community Lyman has come to see is an hour away. To give you an idea of what he is like, Lyman gives Tyler a stuffed bear because he believes the boy is 4. When Dan tries to convince him otherwise, Lyman checks his phone and asks Dan if he is sure. Lyman also mentions having two kids himself; his beautiful assistant with the nerdy glasses says three. Also, Lyman claims his company is green, but later in the movie he describes it as "economically friendly" when the word he should have used is "ecologically". Almost nothing about the company's plans is green except for the money it will make, and possibly a few remaining trees.Lyman is the guilty party here, along with investor Mr. Gupta who will arrive later. But the animals see Dan as the threat, and they harass him constantly. No one believes him, and everyone thinks he is crazy. He even visits a shrink.Tyler meets pretty Amber at the school library. They end up liking each other, and it turns out Amber cares about preserving the forest, even though the townspeople only seem to care about the money coming to their area. Amber even knows about a history of animals harassing settlers over the past 11,000 years.With all the wacky comedy, there is a serious environmental message. The film does turn serious (temporarily, I assure you) before the antics start up again.So will the animals succeed in stopping the development? Will Dan's family ever be happy? How about Tyler and Amber? This is a cute family comedy, though it's probably not considered a classic or anything. It uses several formulas, though I would say it is unique because it puts together formulas that maybe haven't been tried together.The physical comedy is hilarious, at least to me. It's mostly Dan who is the victim, but others get attacked as well.The best actor is the head raccoon, though you wouldn't call what he does acting. He is certainly animatronic when showing human emotions, but this is done very well. Okay, for this movie it is done very well.The animals communicate but don't speak English. Much. There are occasionally sounds they make that resemble words. They do know the lyrics to "Le Freak" by Chic. Anyway, the animation and animatronic creations are quite good, if not on the same level as the great classics.The best human actor is Skyler Samuels as Amber. I really like her.Other actors stand out too.Annie Drummond is a teacher so senile she really shouldn't be working. It has been 40 years since Bessie the Cow died. She isn't in many scenes but she is memorable.I don't know his name or who plays him, but there is a demented cop who actually works for Lyman.Brooke Shields does a halfway decent job. She isn't consistently talented but she seems to be the voice of reason in all the chaos. Plus she still looks good.I'm not sure Brendan Fraser shows talented here most of the time, but there are a few exceptions. Fraser appears to play all of the unfortunate Brendan Fraser appears to play all of the unfortunate victims of the animals throughout history. Then there is the scene where Dan turns into Rambo. And finally, he goes over to the side of the animals when he realizes they are like people.I liked the bluegrass band at the festival. Because Dr. Ralph Stanley once said what he did isn't bluegrass but old-time music, I will say that bluegrass may or may not be the appropriate term. And I really wish they had played more.If you don't think anything else about this movie is worth seeing, at least stay around for the rap video with the closing credits. I think the name of the song is "Insane in the Brain". The cast members have a good time with it, even the historical figures attacked by animals and Shields in monster makeup as her character in Dan's nightmare. And several movies and memorable music videos are included, including Tom Cruise's famous "Risky Business" scene, Shields playing her "Blue Lagoon" character as an adult along with a Christopher Atkins type, Britney Spears' "Baby One More Time" and Robert Palmer's "Addicted to Love".I did say this is a family movie, but there is considerable toilet humor. And other types of disgusting humor. But it really is appropriate for most kids. It would have to be, because no one over the age of ten should see it. Okay, not really. I had a good time.

At the end credits, I was still trying to get the plot.Take the concept from 'Over the Hedge' - brilliant! Take Brendan Fraser, big name from several really good action films. Good idea, but this isn't an action film. Add several plot elements and then forget to use them. Ah. Oops.For some reason, my teenage kids loved this. But then they've never seen the slapstick of Laurel and Hardy.If the CGI was closer to 'Over the Hedge', or the animals talked, rather than those ridiculous thought bubbles, this could have been so much better. If the plot about the new family in town, making connections along the way, had been explored, and the really embarrassing sub plot about the old teacher with a poor memory had been scratched, it would have been far better. The strange sub plot about the deranged forest ranger was even more of a waste of space. He just didn't fit in.Oh, and if you're going to use a CEO character who looks Chinese, and seems to come across as that, PLEASE don't give him a western name - either a Hong Kong Chinese or a straight Chinese one. I'm sure young kids will love this, as its all about the series of slapstick scenes that don't need to hang together with a plot.Making a great slapstick though, you need to learn the techniques of the masters (L&H). Never reuse a joke. Its funny the first time, and after that makes it look like you've run out of ideas. And, make the slapstick work with the plot, not the other way around !